Recommended Posts

> Rolling my eyes that the most famous woman in the world is Princess Diana, when we’re all here because of Eve (no disrespect to Lady Diana, but don’t get me started on princesses and how they get pushed on little girls in the USA).

> I think a category to waymark sites related to significant women worldwide would be a wonderful addition to the hobby.

Share this post

Link to post

We would then create two different categories one for significant women worldwide and another for significant men worldwide and join the waymarks placed in the categories "statues of historical figures" and "citizens memorials" and separate them by gender?

1

Share this post

Link to post

One thing we've noticed is that there seem to be far fewer women's memorials than for men, probably because it had been up to the men to erect the memorials. In any event, you'll notice that each existing memorial category is for an individual, which might lead to some sparse categories. So, what I envision is something like this:

Share this post

Link to post

@BK-Hunters: I love that structure of categories. Would it be a good idea to make "Women of Art"and include the "Women of Literature"?

@MountainWoods: Citizen Memorial is just possible, if the person is or has been a citizen. And I'm well aware, that most waymarks for a significant woman can also be posted to other categories. Just like an Elvis statue can be posted to the Musician Statues category and so on.

@OLapis: We don't need another category for significant men, because we already have loads of categories for male politicians (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln,...), male artists (Elvis, Beatles, Jimmy Buffett,...) and the list goes on. We just need a category or group of categories to honor the other have of this planet's population.

Share this post

Link to post

@OLapis: We don't need another category for significant men, because we already have loads of categories for male politicians (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln,...), male artists (Elvis, Beatles, Jimmy Buffett,...) and the list goes on. We just need a category or group of categories to honor the other have of this planet's population.

I would be very careful making statements like the highlighted one above. Yes, I understand you are going to be passionate to have categories for significant women, however, I will NOTbe happy if a gender litmus test gets put into place on whether or not a new category gets approved. Any new category must stand or fall on the merits of the established four tests. Adding a fifth, a gender test, to either cause a category to fail, or even worse succeed when it would have not in the past - that's just wrong for expediency sake, and wrong for Waymarking as a whole.

As far as "Citizen" Memorial, the term citizen in this case is used to distinguish that this person has not or cannot be determined to have been a member of the military, either active or no longer active. "Citizen" could refer to Citizen, Subject, Visa Holder, etc....

Just for clarification, there is already a category for poets. Does that mean the Poets Category would then become just for males, or does it then become a redundancy should a female poet be posted into the women of literature? Does that mean, then, that the women of literature fails the redundancy test for peer review?

Just an fyi, all of these "male" categories are at least 9 years old - the newest is the Jimmy Buffett (1/24/2009). Most of the others were created in the early days of Waymarking back in 06 and 07 well before there was the active peer review process. The idea was to get new categories online as soon as possible to replace the old reverse geocaches that were removed (Man, I miss those!) The Elvis category (12/28/2006) was created well before the Citizen Memorials (10/21/2009) for your information regarding your reply to @MountainWoods about the Elvis statue. It wasn't the Elvis category that had the responsibility for the redundancy, it was the Citizen Memorials.

I appreciate the passion of your wanting to have categories that reflect your gender, however, the arguments you used just do not hold water when you actually research the facts of the individual categories already in place. BTW, I doubt very seriously, though, that any individual MALE category will ever be approved again - it will be considered redundant. I know that there have been efforts to try for the Bushes and Obama and they have all failed.

So what I am saying to your quote above, what we, the entire Waymarking community, NEED are quality Waymarking categories that are fun, interesting, educational and/or helpful, not categories that have been forced upon the community because of "fairness" because of a handful of 9-12 year old categories make some feel slighted. Are we then going to go into the Civil War Monuments and delete old Confederate monuments out of there because people are "uncomfortable"? Do I not post a really nice Hotel in Raton New Mexico because it was once was called the Swastika Hotel? See, this can get to be a REALLY slippery slope if we really want it to be. Go out, make your categories, please do so without the expectation that they MUST be approved because they are for women and it has to be "fair". They WILL be approved if they are quality, you take the time to get them sorted out with the forums, and you follow the 4 guidelines. Thanks for reading this really long missive.

2

Share this post

Link to post

iconions, first of all: I take it for granted that I'm allowed to express my opinion, just like everybody else. Maybe I should have written "I don't need another...." instead of "We". Just to explain, why I said "We": I thought about the group of people who like the idea of having a little more attention for women. I've seen waymarks for Elvis statues, that were also listed in two or three other categories. If you want a fourth additional category for Elvis, open a new thread in this forum and go ahead.

About citizen memorials: Interesting. I always thought that the person had to be a citizen of that city, province or country (at least been there as a visitor). Not military then, ok. So, if a person saved the life of someone who was injured in a car accident and a memorial is set up for the life saver, I can't list it in "Citizen Memorials", if the life saver was a soldier? And why do I find Citizen Memorials for Elvis Presley, if we all know that he has been a member of the military? Maybe I should ask some more questions in the "Getting Started with Waymarking" forums.

21 hours ago, iconions said:

I appreciate the passion of your wanting to have categories that reflect your gender, however, the arguments you used just do not hold water when you actually research the facts of the individual categories already in place. BTW, I doubt very seriously, though, that any individual MALE category will ever be approved again - it will be considered redundant. I know that there have been efforts to try for the Bushes and Obama and they have all failed.

And I appreciate your passion and the effort to write so many lines just because of a few sentences from me. However, you seem to have no idea about my gender. I've been a man for all my life of 50+ years. (FYI: If you look at our profile photo, I'm the guy with the gray hair in the background and the beautiful lady in front has nothing to do with Waymarking and this idea). It will lead too far to explain my thinking, my philosophy etc., but in a few words: For me(!), if the whole Waymarking hobby would be slightly more female, it would be more interesting. We (Oh My GOD, I said it again!) are in an early stage to find a way to do that, and right now we are only brainstorming some ideas. I also thought about a category for "Feminists" (female AND male ones!), but wanted to think more about it, before throwing just a simple word in the discussion.

Finally, your last paragraph makes me a little upset. How on earth do you get the idea, that I want "categories that have been forced upon the community". Have I ever said that waymarks should be deleted or that I feel "uncomfortable" with any existing waymarks??? Do I have the "expectation that they MUST be approved because they are for women"? NO, man!!! Your final words make me think that you talk about a militant female feminist, who has no idea how Waymarking is working and not me. You don't know me at all.

3

Share this post

Link to post

We can define "Significant Women" by having a Wikipedia page. If the woman has a Wikipedia page about herself, then I believe it should be significant enough for this category. While I think it would make a good category, I believe all aspects of "significant women" could be categorized in other things such as "Civil Rights Memorials", "Statues of Historical Figures", "Citizen Memorials", "People named places", "Graves of Famous People", etc. There's a lot to be done so that every waymarks isn't overlapped. I'm okay with some overlap, but not 100%.

1

Share this post

Link to post

iconions, first of all: I take it for granted that I'm allowed to express my opinion, just like everybody else. Maybe I should have written "I don't need another...." instead of "We". Just to explain, why I said "We": I thought about the group of people who like the idea of having a little more attention for women. I've seen waymarks for Elvis statues, that were also listed in two or three other categories. If you want a fourth additional category for Elvis, open a new thread in this forum and go ahead.

About citizen memorials: Interesting. I always thought that the person had to be a citizen of that city, province or country (at least been there as a visitor). Not military then, ok. So, if a person saved the life of someone who was injured in a car accident and a memorial is set up for the life saver, I can't list it in "Citizen Memorials", if the life saver was a soldier? And why do I find Citizen Memorials for Elvis Presley, if we all know that he has been a member of the military? Maybe I should ask some more questions in the "Getting Started with Waymarking" forums.

And I appreciate your passion and the effort to write so many lines just because of a few sentences from me. However, you seem to have no idea about my gender. I've been a man for all my life of 50+ years. (FYI: If you look at our profile photo, I'm the guy with the gray hair in the background and the beautiful lady in front has nothing to do with Waymarking and this idea). It will lead too far to explain my thinking, my philosophy etc., but in a few words: For me(!), if the whole Waymarking hobby would be slightly more female, it would be more interesting. We (Oh My GOD, I said it again!) are in an early stage to find a way to do that, and right now we are only brainstorming some ideas. I also thought about a category for "Feminists" (female AND male ones!), but wanted to think more about it, before throwing just a simple word in the discussion.

Finally, your last paragraph makes me a little upset. How on earth do you get the idea, that I want "categories that have been forced upon the community". Have I ever said that waymarks should be deleted or that I feel "uncomfortable" with any existing waymarks??? Do I have the "expectation that they MUST be approved because they are for women"? NO, man!!! Your final words make me think that you talk about a militant female feminist, who has no idea how Waymarking is working and not me. You don't know me at all.

Ah, where do I start. First, thanks for letting me live rent free in your head. I guess I won the argument since you got SO pissed off because I made an honest mistake about your gender. My company pays me to be a mind reader, or they think they do, since I have to figure out why software isn't working over the phone. You have a profile picture with a male and a female on it and I made a wrong assumption. You know, instead of getting so pissed off, maybe telling me that I was incorrect would have been more in line. Would you have done that to my face, probably not.

Second, I was going by your words. There was ABSOLUTELY NO venom in my reply. You stated <quote> We just need a category or group of categories to honor the other have of this planet's population. </quote>. I was asking for clarification and stating the opinion that NO gender litmus test should ever be made on a category. You then decided to get completely derailed and jump into my face. Do you not see that I did not disagree with you? All I said was that I am not in favor of putting in a category for the reason of being "fair". Who decides "fair"? That is EXACTLY why I brought up my Swastika Hotel and the Confederate Memorials. Are they "fair" if the offend people? You talk about me not understanding you - did you happen to look in the mirror and see that maybe you don't understand me and where I'm coming from?

Third, seriously, I was trying to assist on why the Citizen Memorial was setup and you were spitting hairs? By the way, the category description specifically excludes Elvis from Citizen Memorials - "Also monuments and memorials to people listed at this link,People (History)." Subcategories:

I'm sorry you decided that my reply was a personal attack - it wasn't. Reread it again without getting pissed off and see that I was actually supporting the idea as long as the category or categories get done the proper way.

1

Share this post

Link to post

We can define "Significant Women" by having a Wikipedia page. If the woman has a Wikipedia page about herself, then I believe it should be significant enough for this category. While I think it would make a good category, I believe all aspects of "significant women" could be categorized in other things such as "Civil Rights Memorials", "Statues of Historical Figures", "Citizen Memorials", "People named places", "Graves of Famous People", etc. There's a lot to be done so that every waymarks isn't overlapped. I'm okay with some overlap, but not 100%.

40 minutes ago, iconions said:

I'm sorry you decided that my reply was a personal attack - it wasn't. Reread it again without getting pissed off and see that I was actually supporting the idea as long as the category or categories get done the proper way.

I've been trying to think of a "proper way" myself, but, given Bluesnote's list of existing categories (quoted above), it seems that the great majority of possible sites and objects have a category, leaving what I perceive as a pretty small selection of possibilities with no existing category.

I like the idea, but now I have to question its viability. We'll need some more in depth thinkers here to divine the type of sites or objects we're looking for that are not already categorized. At the moment, I have nothing.

Keith

1

Share this post

Link to post

iconions, I can only repeat myself: You don't know me at all. I wasn't upset about the gender mistake. The same mistake has happened to me and many others. No problem at all. What I didn't like was the fact that you created the impression that I wanted to force a new category and that I feel uncomfortable with any of the existing waymarks and so on. Because that is far from what my intention is. I want something where both men and women will say "That's an interesting category! Let's go out and take some photos"

Blame it on my lack of good English, but my answer towards OLapis was just trying to express that (in my humble opinion!) creating a category for significant man wouldn't help the idea, that this topic is about. In fact "significant women" wasn't even my idea. Maybe I should have let Benchmark Blasterz answer it. Anyway, let me assure you, that I'm very happy with all the categories that exist, that I don't want to force the community to anything and that I still hope that we find a way to add a tiny female touch to the hobby. Enough said (at least from my side).

Share this post

Link to post

I've been trying to think of a "proper way" myself, but, given Bluesnote's list of existing categories (quoted above), it seems that the great majority of possible sites and objects have a category, leaving what I perceive as a pretty small selection of possibilities with no existing category.

I like the idea, but now I have to question its viability. We'll need some more in depth thinkers here to divine the type of sites or objects we're looking for that are not already categorized. At the moment, I have nothing.

Keith

Whatever group of people we pick, they will always fit in categories that already exist. Even if we manage to keep the category small, there will always be people who deny it because of redundancy. I wonder how the Doves of Peace made it through the forums and peer review, although many of them also fit in other categories like Peace Memorials, Murals, Mosaics etc. And before someone asks for clarification: I have no problem with the Doves of Peace category.

Share this post

Link to post

A few years ago when I started to Waymarking I had an idea of creating a category about a person (in this case was an architect) and brought the discussion to the forums (the old ones that were lost) and it was almost consensual that it was not a good idea, and that in the future it would 't be a good procedure to create new categories about individuals and those that existed were from the beginning of the Waymarking.

In relation to a category where the criterion for inclusion is gender, in my opinion it is not a good solution. Here where I live there is much discussion and controversy about a new law about what they call positive discrimination, the problem with this is to have positive discrimination it has to be negative disctimination on the other side, they say is parity in numbers. (If a person one of the best in is area of expertise competing for a job together with a person who is bad at the same expertise, may not be hired not on the basis of his quality but because of is gender .) To me the society should not be forced but educated to eliminate any type of discrimination by gender.

I hope my thoughts and information on the local controversy will be useful in this discussion.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Oh, please, give me a break. I'm trying to find a tiny opportunity to slightly rise the attention for women and again I have to read that any kind of category for women is most likely a discrimination of men. IF we really want equal rights for everybody, then yes, we should forget about any category for women, but consequently we would also have to get rid of all the categories that are exclusively for men (no matter if they have existed for years or not). I don't want that and (I think) nobody else want that. BUT, instead of keep telling me what isn't possible, why don't you try to give me some ideas of what might be possible?

So, here's something I was thinking about: If we can't create a category ABOUT women, maybe we can at least create a category FOR women. Is there any category for women's shelters? Here in Vienna, Austria we have four reefuges where women who have been abused or experienced violence in their family can find protection, assistance and temporary accommodation. So, is there already a category covering that subject?

Share this post

Link to post

Yes, I know that category, but as far as I understand, they are not clubs that are working exclusively FOR women. They are clubs run BY women who do all kind of things for the entire community. But women's shelters are something that is exclusively helping women in danger and that's a very good and important thing and worth a category, if there is no other category covering that subject. The only problem I see is that it will need caution when taking photos of the location.

Edited April 17, 2018 by PISA-caching

Share this post

Link to post

Oh, please, give me a break. I'm trying to find a tiny opportunity to slightly rise the attention for women and again I have to read that any kind of category for women is most likely a discrimination of men. IF we really want equal rights for everybody, then yes, we should forget about any category for women, but consequently we would also have to get rid of all the categories that are exclusively for men (no matter if they have existed for years or not). I don't want that and (I think) nobody else want that. BUT, instead of keep telling me what isn't possible, why don't you try to give me some ideas of what might be possible?

So, here's something I was thinking about: If we can't create a category ABOUT women, maybe we can at least create a category FOR women. Is there any category for women's shelters? Here in Vienna, Austria we have four reefuges where women who have been abused or experienced violence in their family can find protection, assistance and temporary accommodation. So, is there already a category covering that subject?

I would NEVER support a category for women’s shelters - in the US many such shelter addresses are secret because the women admitted to them are fleeing violent relationships. Waymarking these could get people hurt, or worse.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Yes, I know that category, but as far as I understand, they are not clubs that are working exclusively FOR women. They are clubs run BY women who do all kind of things for the entire community. But women's shelters are something that is exclusively helping women in danger and that's a very good and important thing and worth a category, if there is no other category covering that subject. The only problem I see is that it will need caution when taking photos of the location.

No no no no NO! People taking photos of a battered women’s shelter will TERRIFY the women inside, draw the strong and immediate attention of law enforcement, and by publicizing the locations, will destroy the shelter’s ability to help future victims of violence by requiring a new location. Waymarking such shelters is guaranteed to draw violent attackers to the shelters, which are filled with women and children.

I would not even waymark our women’s shelter’s PUBLIC office, which is hardened with bulletproof glass and solid doors, security cameras, and staffed with a full time armed guard. That shelter has had 2 women clients killed by their abusive partners in separate incidents, so if they’re damned determined it won’t happen again, who can blame them and why work against that?

Let folks heal in peace.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Benchmark Blasterz

1

Share this post

Link to post

We can define "Significant Women" by having a Wikipedia page. If the woman has a Wikipedia page about herself, then I believe it should be significant enough for this category. While I think it would make a good category, I believe all aspects of "significant women" could be categorized in other things such as "Civil Rights Memorials", "Statues of Historical Figures", "Citizen Memorials", "People named places", "Graves of Famous People", etc. There's a lot to be done so that every waymarks isn't overlapped. I'm okay with some overlap, but not 100%.

Wikipedia isn’t a great measuring stick for prominence or significance. There needs to be a more defined idea of this category to keep it from being one where celebrities are on an equal footing with heads of state or major scientific prize winners.

Share this post

Link to post

I would not even waymark our women’s shelter’s PUBLIC office, which is hardened with bulletproof glass and solid doors, security cameras, and staffed with a full time armed guard. That shelter has had 2 women clients killed by their abusive partners in separate incidents, so if they’re damned determined it won’t happen again, who can blame them?

Let folks heal in peace.

Wow, such things have never happened where I live or at least I never heard something like that. I just did a little research and it seems that they are secret in Vienna too. All I could find was the address of the advisery office. Ok, let's forget this idea.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Wikipedia isn’t a great measuring stick for prominence or significance. There needs to be a more defined idea of this category to keep it from being one where celebrities are on an equal footing with heads of state or major scientific prize winners.

I totally agree. The simple fact that someone thought that a specific person deserves an entry at Wikipedia doesn't mean that the person is/was significant to the world. At first sight I thought that a list like "Women who changed the world" would be a good source. But then I noticed that this list contains women that I never heard of and that there is no woman from Austria :-( and just for fun I searched for a German list and found Bertha von Suttner, an Austrian peace activist who worked for Alfred Nobel for a short time. Wikipedia says: "... it is believed that she was a major influence on his decision to include a peace prize among those prizes provided in his will, which she was awarded in the fifth term on 10 December 1905". I guess, that Bertha von Suttner isn't that well-known in the rest of the world, but it's a good example for how different the view is depending on where you live. So, we need some objective criteria.

Share this post

Link to post

No no no no NO! People taking photos of a battered women’s shelter will TERRIFY the women inside, draw the strong and immediate attention of law enforcement, and by publicizing the locations, will destroy the shelter’s ability to help future victims of violence by requiring a new location. Waymarking such shelters is guaranteed to draw violent attackers to the shelters, which are filled with women and children.

I would not even waymark our women’s shelter’s PUBLIC office, which is hardened with bulletproof glass and solid doors, security cameras, and staffed with a full time armed guard. That shelter has had 2 women clients killed by their abusive partners in separate incidents, so if they’re damned determined it won’t happen again, who can blame them?

Let folks heal in peace.

Where i live, you have to sign a contract stating you will not disclose the location to anyone. Definitely not waymarkable.

Share this post

Link to post

Wow, such things have never happened where I live or at least I never heard something like that. I just did a little research and it seems that they are secret in Vienna too. All I could find was the address of the advisery office. Ok, let's forget this idea.